We want Warner Special Products

Why in discussion

Recently, the Supreme Court has approved the Central Government’s plan for the protection of witnesses. This plan came in the hearing of the PIL filed in the security of witnesses related to the Asaram case. The Supreme Court had asked the central government why a draft plan can not be prepared for the protection of witnesses in the country, whereas in the ‘National Investigation Agency Law’ already clear provisions for the protection of witnesses have been provided.

Important point

The Supreme Court has ordered all States and Union Territories to implement the Central Government’s witness protection program, 2018, with effect from the immediate effect.

According to the Supreme Court, the witness protection program, as per Article 141 and 142 of the Constitution, will be in the form of ‘law’ till the proper law is created by the Parliament or the State.

The court also had a claim that even one of the main states to turn them away from the statements of the witnesses is not able to provide them proper security.

The Central Government has drafted this program based on information received from all sources including 18 States / Union Territories.

In this program many provisions have been included for the protection of the witnesses while keeping the identity of the witness safe and giving it a new identity. For instance, in ordinary cases, from the police protection to the witness in the court premises, to provide safe housing in serious cases, to displacement at some secret place etc.

The top court said that the purpose of this program is to enable witnesses to give testimony with truth and boldness.

Relation to the Asaram case

The matter came to light when the Supreme Court was hearing a PIL, in which the issue of security of witnesses in the Asaram rape case was taken vigorously.

The Bench said that the witnesses who testified against Asaram were afraid of serious consequences. It is also alleged that 10 witnesses have already been assaulted and three witnesses have also been murdered.

key points

In this discussion letter, three essential elements related to climate finance such as Scope, Scale, and Speed ​​(speed) have been analyzed in detail.

In the discussion letter, serious concerns have been expressed on the various statistics given by the developed countries about climate finance.

According to this discussion letter, the definitions of climate change related finance used in various reports are not in accordance with the provisions of the UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change). The methods used in this regard were also skeptical.

It has tried to identify the essential elements gradually, which are essential for the strong and transparent accounting of the climate finance which flow from developed countries to developing countries.

Importance of discussion letter

While the financial need of developing countries is in trillions of dollars, on the other hand, on the other hand, the commitment made by the developed countries for the increase in climate finance, along with the increase in it, does not clearly translate into reality. The matter related to providing accurate information about climate finance and closely tracking it is also very important.

What do statistics say?

In 2016, developed countries published a roadmap on climate finance of 100 billion dollars, claiming that the 2013-14 level of public climate finance reached 41 billion US dollars per year. However, these claims were opposed by many people.

In a discussion letter from the Government of India in 2015, it was mentioned that the level of delivery of actual climate finance in 2013-14 was US $ 2.2 billion.

The statistics of 2017 also show a similar story. Of the total commitments for multilateral climate fund, it was actually distributed only to about 12 percent.

Conclusion

The message of this discussion letter is clear that developing countries need more reliable, accurate and verifiable data on the right amount of climate finance to be provided to the developing countries.

Model of financial resources can not be based on the discretion of a particular country. To make transparent reporting of climate finance, the accounting framework should be strengthened through concrete definitions.

There are many issues related to reliability, accuracy and fairness in climate finance reporting that need to be resolved.